Hall v Fox

Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires a course of conduct involving at least two occasions. The conduct must amount to harassment, and the defendant must know or ought reasonably to know that it does. The statutory objective test asks what a reasonable person with the same information would think. Conduct may nevertheless be exempt where its pursuit was reasonable in the particular circumstances. A single unwise incident cannot constitute a course of conduct. The court must assess the actual conduct and surrounding communications, rather than inferred fear or reputation alone.

Michael Hall sought injunctions under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 against Kevin Fox. Fox had contacted Hall concerning rights allegedly assigned to him under an agreement with Ian Wilson. Hall alleged that Fox’s visits to his offices and a building site, together with statements and demands concerning the alleged debt, amounted to harassment. Fox denied making threats and contended that his conduct was reasonable.

Interim injunctions were granted without notice by Keith J on 23 March 2012 and continued by Underhill J on 3 April 2012. At trial, the issues were whether Fox had pursued a course of conduct amounting to harassment, whether he knew or ought reasonably to have known that it did, and whether the conduct was reasonable in the circumstances.

1. The claim was dismissed. The injunctions granted by Keith J and Underhill J were discharged so far as necessary.
2. Under Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 1, liability requires a course of conduct which amounts to harassment and which the defendant knows or ought to know amounts to harassment. The objective question is what a reasonable person possessing the same information would think. Section 1 also provides a defence where, in the particular circumstances, pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
3. Section 7(3) requires conduct on at least two occasions. Fox’s conduct on 9, 10 and 23 February 2012 did not amount to harassment, and he did not know nor ought reasonably to have known that it did. The claimant’s evidence about the disputed conversations was rejected, while independent evidence supported Fox’s account.
4. The position changed to some extent after Fox was told on 24 February that his attentions were regarded as threatening. However, the claimant thereafter sent mixed messages and continued to contemplate a meeting about the alleged claim. Fox’s visit to the claimant’s house on 29 February was unwise and liable to be misconstrued, but it was only one incident and therefore did not constitute a course of conduct.
5. The claimant had failed to give full and frank disclosure when obtaining the without-notice injunction. Material omissions included failing to disclose that Fox had provided the underlying agreement and that they had gone to a public house together. The court therefore discharged the interim injunctions.

This was a first-instance decision. The judgment records that Keith J granted interim injunctions on 23 March 2012 without notice, and that Underhill J continued them on 3 April 2012 until trial. Those injunctions were discharged by the trial judge.